RSSAppeals court lets 'Vista Capable' class action proceed
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published April 23, 2008, 11:15 AM
In a big blow to the case against Microsoft's allegedly confusing "Vista Capable" labeling program for PCs, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday denied Microsoft's petition to overturn a decision granting the case class action status.
It may be exactly what Microsoft doesn't want right now, even if it ends up winning the case in the end: the symbolism of a mass of consumers taking up arms against the company, in dispute over the very heart of its value proposition for Windows Vista. Yesterday the Ninth Circuit ended the company's hopes of being able to face the plaintiff on the company's terms.
Microsoft legal spokesperson Jack Evans issued this statement to BetaNews late yesterday: "The Ninth Circuit's decision not to accept our request for interim review is not a ruling on the merits of our case. We look forward to presenting all of the facts on what the district court itself said is a novel claim."
That claim, first put forth in April 2007, is that since there were more than one tier of Vista, the bottom one being "Home Basic," it was never made clear to consumers just what a PC bearing the "Vista Capable" logo was capable of doing. Since Home Basic may not be -- at least in some consumers' minds -- an upgrade over Windows XP, a computer marketed as an upgrade and as "Vista Capable" may be misrepresenting the nature of the upgrade as being provided by the operating system.
This despite Microsoft's claim on the day it announced the program that "Vista Capable...does not represent minimum hardware requirements for Windows Vista." It made the case in April 2006 that the logo was merely to help consumers along a path of transition, though lately, the company has been differentiating "transition" from "upgrade" as though one was never supposed to imply the other.
The Washington State district court hearing the case agreed to proceed under the plaintiffs' theory that the Vista Capable program unjustly aided in the artificial inflation of the price of PCs, without actually adding real capability. Microsoft's argument to the Ninth Circuit in its petition for a stay of the class action ruling was first that the plaintiff is suing the wrong party.
"The reasoning of these cases applies with special force here, given the Court's ruling that this case can proceed only on a price inflation theory, i.e., a theory that class members bought PCs at inflated prices," Microsoft's petition read (PDF available here, supplied by the Seattle Times). "Microsoft, as the Court knows, did not set the price of a single PC. Instead, OEMs located outside Washington manufactured and priced their PCs outside Washington, where they also affixed the Windows Vista Capable logo. The OEMs that sold through retail channels then shipped to retailers or wholesalers, mostly outside Washington, who made their own pricing decisions."
That led to the second branch of Microsoft's theory, that the plaintiffs adding their names to the class fall outside the jurisdiction of the district court. Third, it argued, if injury was done to each plaintiff in the class, that plaintiff's case should be heard separately because the information relative to each plaintiff may be different from others, especially since they all bought different PCs from different sources at different times.
"Leaving discovery aside, the failure to grant a stay will require class notice," read Microsoft's petition. "Microsoft has no way of identifying who falls within the class because (a) it does not know which PCs were labeled as Windows Vista Capable, and (b) it has no record of the consumers to whom OEMs and retailers sold labeled PCs."
The Ninth Circuit did not provide any guidance as to why it denied Microsoft's petition; it was not required to. Nonetheless, as the case goes forward, its outcome either way will set precedent as to whether Microsoft is legally responsible for the constitution of the personal computer, by virtue of having created Windows in the first place, and Windows being the principal operating system of PCs.
And don't forget good old BN, the editorial side, which keeps the story alive by leaving it on their front page. Anti-MS articles not only tend to be slanted but also tend to have a longer shelf-life on the front page than other articles.
BN= the "yellow" journalism of the Hearst era and Fulton is a creep who's picture is a perfect mugshot for a child abuser. Not saying he is but he is creepy looking.:)
Have a nice day:)
Score: 0
|So long as Vista basic runs on it, I really don't see the basis for a lawsuit here.
If this wins, Jeep might want to rethink their "Trail rated" logo.
Score: 0
|Wow. 64 comments and counting. This is simply the US legal system with someone trying to make a quick buck.
Heck, I wished I could sue the Bush Admin to return all the taxes wasted on lies and chasing ghosts.
Score: 0
|I wonder how much of this blather would take place if people were commenting face to face. I probably couldn't comment, because I'd be laughing too hard. The thing we all share is our ignorance.
"He who thinks he knows everything is a fool, and knows nothing".
Score: 0
|Ok NEVER used vista other than on other people's PC's no need for it yet so I won't upgrade till I need it.
Having said that and after reading the report on BetaNews I think this is a silly court case, (I don't wanna sleep with bill gate either) but the Vista sticker is great for users of computer's (by users i mean people that normally buy low spec pc's that you can pick up in walmark, pc world, etc).
If they run vista they run vista.
Most users I'd say about 85% use a pc from the box and use software they know and trust they fell better weither right or wrong that they can use vista and there new pc has it, just like any new tech they think newer is better.
The other 15% know better they know that to get a GOOD pc be it vista, XP, 2000, Linux or BSD you need a pc that you need and these people don't give a rat's a** about a little sticker.
Just my 2 cent's
PS. why does every ms post here turn personal towards ms or a fight between people here? I hate reading the comment's most of the time as it just become's a AntiVista vs AntiXP or AntiMs vs AntiLinux.
with all the minds that post here if you stopped b****ing at each over and said what's good with ms, linux, bsd etc maybe people would read and enjoy.
Score: 0
|I agree.
Upgrading these days is useless anyway. Go get a new PC or stick with XP.
Score: 0
|You folks can trade verbal blows (spin)as long as this thread remains valid, but I don't read any possible solutions to the pending issue so I'll drop my dimes worth, In the end I truly think it would be ultimately cheaper too replace the flawed notebooks/computers with units that are certified by Microsoft to run Windows Vista Home Premium version of their OS.
Why do I perceive this?? Because everything in business is considered a "numbers game", i.e. number of units sold (unit cost) number of consumers, overall profit/loss etc, and number of hours utilized by hourly employees. Some of you are probably asking yourselves where is he going with this? Look at it this way and this is the way Microsoft should be seeing it as well. Face a class action suit, by upset pissed off consumers which would involve time, lawyers (at usually 300 dollars and hour per Attorney) with the possibility of losing and a ruling that would be a "black mark" against the organization as a whole and open you up too further litigation in the future by any bunch of dis-satisfied entities. Or you could be more pro-active and excuse the expression " cut the bas****s arguments off at the knees". Microsoft would do this by playing the "hero so to speak", find and compile a list of the various OEM's whom sold the consumer(s) the PCs with the issue, have said OEM's receive a memo from Microsoft requesting the information and "the order", too send these individual's an email or letter to inquire if they are satisfied with their computer as is. Those that respond that they are not go on a list. You always get a better price per unit if you purchase in large quantities (like buying some thing wholesale vs retail). Microsoft should find a PC notebook supplier that they are very experienced with and familiar and replace all of the circumspect PCs for those consumers. It's cheaper too generate OEM authorization numbers to load an OS than to box and send a retail version.
They could have most of the so called "leg work", list compiling done by salaried employees (they're paying them already) send the acquired units to one of their various warehouses to be checked personally by a Microsoft certified professional who or whom would generate a certified list for legal reasons and label and ship the PCs to the end users. Microsoft could come out looking like "the hero", and I still think overall it would be cheaper in the long run because the consumer would say "look what they were willing to provide for me" as well as telling their friends about and getting a great PR story or two out of it. Less mud slinging/ negative PR and damage too the overall reputation of the software Giant. The real "kicker" is the whole thing qualifies as a business write off/ tax deduction. But seriously it would make for a great PR stunt. Sorry this post is so long folks but I felt the need too share a possible solution scenario. Yes I'm a Microsoft Fan-boy,and that's my right but sometimes I swear I don't understand some of the things they do. If folks want too be hot at somebody I can think of a certain chip manufacturer who's name starts with an "I" and likes too play games with clock speeds because they hit the so called thermal barrier (heat wise) so we just thought we would start all over again so we could keep selling processors though you'll have to wait to get back to the GHZ you had before because that's how we make "our money", oh what the hell you'll play along and be happy won't you??? Think of it like this, you can have any OS you would like but if you don't have a CPU (processor) what's it going to run on.(thru)
Score: 0
|Microsoft is totally guilty here, the Vista Capable/Ready thing was completely ridiculous. They were desperate to sell Vista so they lowered the requirements so that even the crappiest PCs on the market had a "sticker" saying it would run Vista. What the sticker doesn't say is you can only run Vista Basic on the capable computers and it will run like pure crap. I have no doubt they will end up settling, though I hope more lawsuits follow. They've gotten away with their BS long enough.
I agree with the comment below too, the best way to tell Microsoft to DIAF is to run Linux or BSD, or get a Macintosh. With that giant moron Ballmer in charge Microsoft will bury themselves soon enough though.
Score: 0
|How many applications actually run well with the minimum specs?
In my experience, not many.
Score: 0
|Fortunately, due to market choice, its entirely possible to avoid this entire mess.
Score: 0
|The full leaked Microsoft emails:
http://blog.seattlepi.nw...oft/archives/132891.asp
A few excerpts:
"Intel has the biggest challenge. Their "945" chipset which is the baseline Vista set "barely" works right now and is very broadly used. The "915" chipset which is not Aero capable is in a huge number of laptops and was tagged as "Vista Capable" but not Vista Premium. I don't know if this was a good call. But these function but will never be great."
"In the end, we lowered the requirement to help Intel make their quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell motherboards with the 915 graphics embedded."
Microsoft and Intel colluded together and broke US anti-trust laws. Their fans can whine and blame consumers trying to defend them all they want, let them whine. It's for the court to decide, not Joe Fanboy.
Score: 0
|*yawn*
Aero!=Vista.
:)
...and the fact you can draw "collusion" and "broke anti-trust laws" from those quotes speaks volumes. Intel was never even mentioned as having had any involvement whatsoever in the decision, a king of key component to any claims of collusion, ya know?
Score: 0
|"By lowering Vista Capable standards, presumably knowingly below a capable of threshold, Intel graphics chip sets were fixed at a lower price than they should have been in a competitive market. Microsoft made the change to accommodate a single partner and one that arguably is another monopoly. The European Union already is investigating Intel for anticompetitive, monopolistic activities."
http://www.microsoft-wat..._capable_collusion.html
Of course I'm wasting my time telling this to a MS fanboy, you'll just come up with some more BS to defend them. It doesn't matter, a federal judge's opinion is a bit more important than a nobody on Betanews. As I said the courts will decide. When you become a judge and have access to all the evidence then you can run your yap.
Score: 0
|ROFLMAO
Being investigated!=found guilty.
When you become a judge and have access to all the evidence then you can run your yap.
Doing an awful lot of yapping yourself there, boy. I'm betting the only bench you sit on has an advert for a Realtor on it. ;)
Enjoy hypocrisy, do ya?
Score: 0
|PC_Tool,
"I'm betting the only bench you sit on has an advert for a Realtor on it."
Really that's your comeback? Skyfrog made some pretty valid points but I guess it's easier to just do personal attacks rather than debate his points.
Score: 0
|Thanks :)
I quit talking to him though, it's pointless because he's so stubborn, arrogant, and would rather die than to consider someone else's opinion or even try to be considerate to them. It's like he's always right and if you don't agree with him you're a moron or something.
I still believe Microsoft willfully deceived consumers and they'll be paying up for it at the end.
Score: 0
|Debate what point? He stated simply that being investigated does not mean MS is guilty, seems pretty cut and dry there on his response
Score: 0
|toolie actually pointed out a valid point about what you were saying.
I for one would like to see you actually reply rather than just 'give up because you can'
Score: 0
|I don't know about this. I installed Vista Ult on my wife's crappy $400 laptop because it said "Vista Compatible" on it and guess what? It works great! Seriously. It's AERO is fast not sluggish, apps load faster, she loves it. Big step up from XP.
It's an AMD Sempron 3200 with ATI M200 shared graphics with 768mb of ram. 4200 rpm 60GB HD.
I think this lawsuit is BS.
Score: 0
|Try installing it on one of the Vista Capable laptops with Intel graphics that helped start this lawsuit and then get back to us about how well it works.
Score: 0
|...because OEM's have *never* sold underpowered hardware before...
/sarcasm
Score: 0
|Microsoft was the one who put the Vista Capable stickers on them. Microsoft's own internal emails show that they knew the hardware was not really up to running Vista but they did it anyway.
Not sure why you are having so much trouble understanding that. Blind loyalty to a company does that I guess.
Score: 0
|Yeah, the only explanation i can come up for PC_Trolls blind allegiance to all things M$ is that he works for them or one of their partners.
You will _never_ see PC_Troll praise Apple, Sony, or Nintendo.
Score: 0
|I *love* how you morons can totally ignore every post I've ever made saying MSFT did something wrong every time I post about something I *don't* think they did wrong.
You will _never_ see PC_Troll praise Apple, Sony, or Nintendo.
Pitdimwit strikes again. I own a Mac. I like the interface. I have *often* stated I plan on buying a Wii when they become more readily available in my area, and Sony? Pfft.
Score: 0
|MSFT approved the spec. The OEM applied the sticker, installed, tested, and sold the systems.
They were sold with Vista Basic. They *run* Vista Basic, thus they are capable of *running* Vista Basic.
Not sure why you are having so much trouble understanding that.
...indeed.
Score: 0
|LMAO.
Score: 0
|That's your opinion, that doesn't make you right.
Score: 0
|GET A JOB
Score: 0
|The only "opinion" stated in the post you just replied to is that El Dingo is a moron.
Most here would argue vehemently that it is, in fact, one of the undying truths of the universe.
Score: 0
|I broke down and picked up a Wii, man it's great.
The graphics suck, but it's not sold for it's graphical ability so meh.
Score: 0
|It wouldn't be worth the effort...
Score: 0
|But eldingo's comment makes him right?
Right......
Score: 0
|Does a Toshiba Satallite M100 count?
Vista Ultimate runs perfectly fine on mine by default.
Score: 0
|This is funny, see I ran vista ultimate on a athlon 2500 xp and a ati radeon 9200 I think it was it was agp and it ran well enough with aero as well, now this was during the betas so not sure if something massive changed
That pc was at least 5 years old, I don't get why it runs like molasses on new machines with faster everything except memory?
To me it seems the only thing that Vista truly needs to function is ram (my above mentioned pc did have 1.5 gigs)
Score: 0
|It does indeed love RAM. The more the merrier.
The only true Vista is x64, and only with 4GB. Anything less is just a poor substitute and should not have Vista on it.
Score: 0
|Have to agree with you Tool. Vista 64 has some other air about it...whether it's because it doesn't run some of the older crap that 32 runs, thereby indirectly resulting in a more, dare I say it, sterile pc? Meaning a PC with software MEANT for Windows Vista vs. software that 'can run on vista' or perhaps other features I've missed...they're almost like different Oses. I decided to stick with 32 because I'm weak and it's taking me a while to say bye to some of the programs I like, but I hate wasting 1/4 of my ram and I like that sterile feeling. So I think at the end of this month I'll be switching for good to Vista 64. Wondering if I should take the plunge with my lappy as well.
Score: 0
|Vista doesn't run well on any single core processor. I tried doing a clean install of the RTM version of Vista Home Premium on a computer with an AMD Athlon XP 1800 CPU, 1GB of DDR RAM, and ATI Radeon 9800 Pro graphics and the computer slowed to a crawl. Upgrading the motherboard and processor to an AMD Opteron 1.4GHz processor gave very little performance increase.
Score: 0
|I am just .. oi .. NO OS should EVER need 4GB of memory just to boot and be barely useful.
Applications? Some, maybe.
OS? NEVER.
/rant
That said I can't complain about Vista since I haven't touched it since the betas.
Score: 0
|I'm currently running Vista Ultimate on an old Dell XPS 400 with a single core processor. It has 4GB of DDR RAM and an upgraded soundcard. The processor is a Intel Pentium D.
Score: 0
|Unless there's some absolute necessity for running X64 I'd avoid it like the plague. The fact that I couldn't run NOD32 made my decision easy.
I have one HP computer running X64 and it's a pain in the ass. The damn thing impacts all the other computers on my LAN. It blew out my network printer. HP wants $270.00 to supply me with 32bit restore disks.
I'm on my old server running Vista Ultimate 32bit. This thing has enough raw power to light up a city. At one time it had nearly 3.5 terabytes of storage. Do yourself a favor and stay with 32bit.
Score: 0
|Single core?!
The Pentium D brand refers to two series of dual-core 64-bit x86 processors with the NetBurst microarchitecture. Each CPU comprised two single-core dies (CPUs) - next to each other - in one Multi-Chip Module package. The brand's first processor, codenamed Smithfield, was released by Intel on May 25, 2005. Nine months later, Intel introduced its successor, codenamed Presler, but without offering significant upgrades in design, still resulting in a relatively high power consumption.
Score: 0
|"The Washington State district court hearing the case agreed to proceed under the plaintiffs' theory that the Vista Capable program unjustly aided in the artificial inflation of the price of PCs, without actually adding real capability."
And how does that have to do anything with Microsoft? It doesn't. That has everything to do with the computer manufacturers. How pathetic.
Score: 0
|^This^ while it will be debated between lots of people here it is a fair point.
I don't disagree that the Vista Capable marketing was bulls***, this statement has absolutely nothing to do with being Vista Capable.
Score: 0
|"And how does that have to do anything with Microsoft? It doesn't."
Who came up with the Vista Capable program? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the manufacturers. Microsoft did it to help Intel sell their integrated graphics chips.
http://gizmodo.com/36210...p-crappy-graphics-chips
It was Microsoft's decision, so they are the ones responsible.
Score: 0
|*laughs*
So sue Intel.
Sheesh...
Score: 0
|So Microsoft had no part in it? Intel came up with the Vista Capable program?
Score: 0
|You must realize one thing about the tool. His god can do no wrong...
Score: 0
|It's not Microsoft's fault that consumers didn't do their research. All you have to do is compare the recommended system requirements on the retail packaging of Vista Home Premium to the tech specs the PC manufacturer makes available. If you had bought a Designed for Windows XP computer right after Windows XP was released there's a good chance it might have come with 128MB or even 64MB of RAM (reduced functionality here). Hardly a suitable PC for Windows XP.
This is the consumers fault and not Microsoft's.
Score: 0
|It does have to do with MS. I don't like it any more than you do but in all fairness they deserve it no? In a perfect world, they'd all be held accountable....PC manufacturers for putting the sticker on as well as MS for passing 'less than capable' hardware. In the real world however, blame is going to be put on software. MS has a big fat target on their chest because after all is said and done, for whatever reason they did it, they did it - they passed hardware that runs vista albeit, a lesser version of the OS with no obvious signs to say, 'well, you can upgrade but it won't run well' and with implications that it can/could.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
Score: 0
|Yeah, because it wasn't misleading at all. The consumers are to blame! They should know the difference between "Vista Capable" and "Vista Ready", and they should know all about technical details. Go back and read those internal emails and then try to tell me there were no shenanigans going on. It's not the responsibility of the consumers when a company uses blatantly misleading advertising.
Hardly a suitable PC for Windows XP.
So you agree Microsoft should not have labeled them as "Designed for Windows XP". See, screwing over consumers is really nothing new for them.
That is unless you are saying it's the consumers fault for buying a computer clearly labeled as "Designed for Windows XP", which would be idiotic.
Score: 0
|I'd love to agree with that but I can't. At every level, MS has to take some blame here. This isn't JUST about the sticker. Think of it through the eyes of an 'uneducated' consumer who isn't really interested in researching OS specs, etc. MS has the responsibility to make buying a PC as easy as possible, the OS should be transparent, that is to say, while it's important, you shouldnt have to worry that your brand new computer won't run a new OS well. MS didn't live up to that. By created tiers of these Vista stickers, they allowed manufacturers and oems to 'dump' products to people as Vista capable - which to the uninformed consumer = can run Vista which in turn = can run ANY Vista, which again in turn means can run any version of Vista well (at least as fast or faster than XP, as it's an UPGRADE). Those of us here however, know that this isn't the case. It wasn't the case then, and it isn't the case now.
Then what should MS have done?
I believe MS had the right idea with the stickers, but they should have made them more DETAILED. That's all it would have taken to prevent this mess. 'Vista Basic/Business upgrade recommended', 'Vista Home Premium/Ultimate upgrade recommended' or something of the sort. Stickers that let you know 'look, you can run vista on this stuff, but you can't run all vista versions'....simple as that.
It's never the consumers fault. Remember the days when 'the consumer' purchased a 200Gb drive and saw 190GB and could/did sue? These are the consumers companies need to market to...not the ones that know all this already.
Score: 0
|. The consumers are to blame! They should know the difference between "Vista Capable" and "Vista Ready", and they should know all about technical details.
Unless $600 is throw-away money?
HELL YES!
Is it that hard for you to expect others to take responsibility for their own actions?
Score: 0
|So misleading advertising is ok for expensive products because the consumers should have done their research. Hear that companies? You can say whatever you want now and not be held accountable, it's up to us consumers to find the facts.
Is it that hard for you to expect others to take responsibility for their own actions?
Why do you think that applies to consumers but not companies? Isn't Microsoft responsible for it's own actions?
Score: 0
|Yah. Its not Microsoft's fault that so many consumers are idiots.
Score: 0
|Its more Intel but since MS caved to their pressure the blame lies on both of them,
PC Tool has a point if you are planning on spending $600 purchase you should do research beforehand.
People dont just walk into a car lot and go oh look at the price I am going to buy it because its cheap...they research large purchases beforehand, if they don't its their fault as well.
Score: 0
|No. If a person goes to buy a computer and it says right on it that it will do a certain thing when in reality it isn't really capable of it, that's not the consumers fault. What are they supposed to research? The requirements for Vista, put there by the same company that is being sued for false advertising and collusion. Yeah that will work.
If a company breaks the law, that's it. You can't say "Oh well the consumer should have done more research". BS.
Score: 0
|it isn't really capable of it
But it is...
If a company breaks the law, that's it.
*laughing*
Score: 0
|*yawn*
I bought a system that couldn't play Crysis...you don't see me suing anyone, do you?
Why do you think that applies to consumers but not companies? Isn't Microsoft responsible for it's own actions?
Microsoft didn't sell the computer, nor did they advertise the computer. All they did was make the OS that was on it.
Duh?
Score: 0
|Think of it through the eyes of an 'uneducated' consumer who isn't really interested in researching OS specs, etc. MS has the responsibility to make buying a PC as easy as possible, the OS should be transparent, that is to say, while it's important, you shouldnt have to worry that your brand new computer won't run a new OS well. MS didn't live up to that.
This is not a law anywhere, and who gets to determine "well"?
. By created tiers of these Vista stickers, they allowed manufacturers and oems to 'dump' products to people as Vista capable - which to the uninformed consumer = can run Vista which in turn = can run ANY Vista,
One of the HP computers I bought came with a game. Does this mean I can sue them because it doesn't play *all* games? Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
which again in turn means can run any version of Vista well (at least as fast or faster than XP, as it's an UPGRADE).
BS. OS upgrades *rarely* improve performance over their predecessors on the exact same hardware.
t's never the consumers fault. Remember the days when 'the consumer' purchased a 200Gb drive and saw 190GB and could/did sue? These are the consumers companies need to market to...not the ones that know all this already.
This is the same reason we have those stupid "don't use this product in the shower" labels on Hair Dryers. At exactly what point do we stop catering to the lowest common denominator?
Score: 0
|This whole issue started with some woman who could not run AERO, AERO IS NOT VISTA, it does nothing different to vista but make it pretty.
Score: 0
|Banquo is absolutely right on this one. I usually fall into the "take responsibility for their own actions" camp, but MS and MANY other companies sell their products with bunk and misleading information. Not everyone has the will to sort through the maze of information. Some just want to trust the seller, as ill-advised as that is.
Score: 0
|"I bought a system that couldn't play Crysis...you don't see me suing anyone, do you?"
Was the system advertised as being able to play Crysis? NO. So what does that have to do with this? Nothing. You usually have some pretty decent arguments but you're full of lame today. You aren't that stupid.
Microsoft didn't sell the computer, nor did they advertise the computer. All they did was make the OS that was on it.
Microsoft DID approve the Vista capable spec, and they DID make a deal with Intel to lower the requirements for "Vista Capable" to almost unusable levels to help them sell computers. Stop pretending they didn't do anything wrong; I know they are your precious, but get a grip.
Score: 0
|Yeah, go laugh at the judge and maybe he'll change his mind. You obviously know so much more about it. Oh wait, you actually don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
Be sure to come back and laugh some more when MS loses this case.
Score: 0
|Vista runs like s*** on these systems even without Aero. The sticker just says "Vista Capable" anyway and nothing else. It doesn't say jack about what that means. It just makes it sound like it can run Vista, no mention of any limitations were made. Deceptive advertising at the very least, and the deal with Intel isn't going to help them any.
Score: 0
|Unfortunately "lemon laws" don't apply to operating systems.
Score: 0
|Oh wait, you actually don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
Got that from the fact that I happen to disagree with you, huh?
Nice.
Base all of your "facts" on such solid foundations, do you?
Score: 0
|Was the system advertised as being able to play Crysis? NO. So what does that have to do with this? Nothing. You usually have some pretty decent arguments but you're full of lame today. You aren't that stupid.
Are you dense, or can you not retain more than one comment at a time. The poster above made a *very* similar argument regarding Vista. Of course my example was lame...it was intended to be, to show the fallacy in logic of *his* claim.
Duh?
and they DID make a deal with Intel to lower the requirements for "Vista Capable" to almost unusable levels to help them sell computers.
You have a few emails from MSFT to other MSFT employees talking about how upping the reqs mught hurt Intel. You have *nothing* proving any actual *involvement* from Intel.
Score: 0
|No, it was just lame. Laptops with the Vista Capable sticker are advertised as being able to run Vista. Your example is not a valid comparison. The problem is that Vista Capable is intentionally vague. It doesn't say "Vista Basic Capable" or list any limitations. The other sticker says "Vista Ready". What's the difference between capable and ready? Unless it is explained to the consumer they have no way of knowing.
As for Intel, I'm sure Microsoft just helped them out of the kindness of their hearts. And you ask about ME being dense...
Score: 0
|Based on actual evidence and a court's decision that the case is valid, as opposed to your statements which are pulled out of that big hollow thing sitting on your shoulders. If you really believe that Microsoft didn't do anything wrong and that the whole "Vista Capable" thing wasn't actually a load of bs that's fine.
You can continue to bleat and laugh and preach if it makes you happy. The one thing I've noticed about you is that you're one of the most arrogant, smug and self important people to ever post here and you ALWAYS have to be right. Good for you, if it makes you feel good that's the only important thing I guess.
Score: 0
|Our Judicial system seems to have little clue over technology altogether, honestly I don't believe they have a clue, but that is my opinion.
It needs to be determined what capable actually means
Can you use the OS?
Do all the included functions work?
Does Vista capable mean any Vista offering?
Score: 0
|If a person goes to buy a computer and it says right on it that it will do a certain thing when in reality it isn't really capable of it, that's not the consumers fault.
Agreed. The sticker says "Vista Capable." The machines with those stickers on them are capable of running Vista. I still don't understand the problem...?
Score: 0
|Vista runs like s*** on these systems even without Aero.
Again, the sticker said "Vista Capable". Since the machine is indeed capable of running Vista, regardless of how it runs, it is still lawful to say it is capable.
If a machine with a "Vista Capable" sticker on it is incapable of running Vista, then we have a problem.
Not to confuse with another "Crysis" analagy--but if I have a video card that is "capable" of playing Crysis, this does not mean it has to be able to play Crysis at 30FPS running 1600x1200 with very high settings--as currently no video card is "capable" of doing that, but my card can play it at 1024x768 on high settings.
So the question becomes...what is capable? Well, as you put it:
It doesn't say jack about what that means.
So why do you make assumtions on what that means? That's your assumptions, not Microsoft's words.
I suppose that if you categorize the Aero interface as being a necessity for running Windows Vista, then this certainly means that Microsoft has a problem. To most people, however, Aero is not a requirement, in fact I am running an Athlon 64 X2 4400+ CPU, 2GB RAM and a GeForce 8800GTS video card and I disabled Aero on my Vista 32-bit Ultimate Edition. I've run it without Aero for over a year and have no regrets.
I've also seen it on a notebook with an Intel 945G chipset and just 512MB of RAM and guess what? It is indeed "capable" of running Vista.
Score: 0
|You can't expect consumers to be that smart.
Even the most "informed consumer" grade user isn't going to know what's under the hood, unless they are an enthusiast or technical professional then it's open season if they buy them.
Every day people walk into a car lot and buy cars because of they way they look (aka their pretty case) or the price.
Most of us here probably wouldn't but we aren't anywhere near average consumers.
Score: 0
|The court hasn't decided that the case is valid. Rather, they've just allowed the groups of customers to be certified as a class. The merits still have yet to be decided. Microsoft may come out the loser on this one yet, they may win, or, as is often the case, they'll settle to make this go away. This decision is more procedural than anything. Let's just wait and see what happens before we all start getting on each other's cases, ok?
Score: 0
|I'm simply saying that just because a computer has a sticker stating it can run a particular operating system doesn't mean it can run it at a fast speed or that you'll get access to all of the features in an OS if a computer doesn't have the necessary hardware. Back in the day it was perfectly legal for a computer with an Intel 386DX CPU and 4MB of memory to be labeled "Designed for Windows 95" even though the computer was far too slow to get any work done.
Score: 0
|Thankyou! That is exactly my point!
Score: 0
|Yah and the computer manufactures knew it would run like crap and they didnt care. Therefor it is thier fault.
Score: 0
|The people that run the courts have done the same amount of research as the idiotic comsumers.
Score: 0
|